Why is the assumption here that big cities (East/West Coast or otherwise) want to perpetuate addiction? I think a simpler assumption (that involves fewer inferential leaps) is that large, wealthy cities provide more resources for homeless addicts, and so they end up congregating there.
> large, wealthy cities provide more resources for homeless addicts, and so they end up congregating there
There was some bussing of homeless into city centres. But I haven't seen evidence that a majority, let alone significant plurality, of these cities' homeless addicts became homeless somewhere else.
Given that less than half of NYC residents are born in NYC, the null hypothesis would be that the average homeless person is also born outside of the city[1].
(Maybe this demographic skews more towards natives in the case of homeless addicts, but I can’t find a statistic to support that.)
